Walsh v New York Univ NY Slip Op 30982(U) April 5, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Carol R.

Similar documents
Klamka v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 33446(U) March 5, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Carol R.

Racanelli v Jemsa Realty, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33114(U) December 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Carol R.

Ramos v 885 W.E. Residents Corp NY Slip Op 30077(U) January 11, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Carol R.

Storelli v McConner St. Holdings, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33110(U) December 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge:

Flores v Saint Illuminator's Armenian Apostalic, Church in N.Y. City 2018 NY Slip Op 32454(U) October 1, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket

Witoff v Fordham Univ NY Slip Op 32994(U) November 20, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Carol R.

Doran v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 32858(U) March 21, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Manuel J.

Hernandez v Extell Dev. Co NY Slip Op 30420(U) March 2, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Cynthia S.

Marguerite v 27 Park Ave. LLC NY Slip Op 31408(U) June 25, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Carol R.

Time Warner Cable N.Y. City, LLC v Fidelity Invs. Inst.Servs. Co., Inc NY Slip Op 32860(U) October 31, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County

Berihuete v 565 W. 139th St. L.P NY Slip Op 32129(U) August 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Kelly A.

Barker v LC Carmel Retail LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33410(U) December 31, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: David

Paiba v FJC Sec., Inc NY Slip Op 30383(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Mary Ann Brigantti

Booso v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 31878(U) August 8, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Kathryn E.

Mastroianni v Battery Park City Auth NY Slip Op 30031(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:

Valentini v Verizon 2013 NY Slip Op 32546(U) October 17, 2013 Supr Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases

Sentinal Ins. Co. v Madison Ave. LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32863(U) November 2, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /18 Judge:

Groppi v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 31849(U) August 8, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2009 Judge: Kathryn E.

Sada v August Wilson Theater 2015 NY Slip Op 31977(U) October 23, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Jennifer G.

Garaventa v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp NY Slip Op 32637(U) August 25, 2010 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /05 Judge: Joseph

Matter of Jones v Madison Ave. LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33104(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge:

Taliento v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc NY Slip Op 30427(U) March 3, 2010 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /06

Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Consolidated Edison, Inc NY Slip Op 32094(U) September 6, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2006 Judge:

Lopez v Royal Charter Props., Inc NY Slip Op 32146(U) October 21, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Cynthia

Perez v Refinery NYC Mgmt LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32545(U) October 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Nancy M.

Arasim v 38 Co. LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30981(U) April 1, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Margaret A.

Soriano v St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland Inc NY Slip Op 33073(U) December 21, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Ardeljan v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 30468(U) March 23, 2015 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1539/2012 Judge: Robert J.

Porto v Golden Seahorse LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30014(U) January 2, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Kathryn E.

Wenzel v Jamaica Ave. LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 34197(U) December 9, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 941/2009 Judge: Robert L.

Lugo v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 30267(U) January 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Kathryn E.

Caraballo v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 30605(U) March 4, 2011 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Thomas P.

Suazo v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32869(U) September 28, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Ernest F.

Greystone Bldg. & Dev. Corp. v Makro Gen. Contrs., Inc NY Slip Op 33172(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Hagensen v Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Sklyar, Gacavino & Lake, P.C NY Slip Op 33548(U) January 3, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number:

Copiague Pub. School Dist. v Health and Educ. Equip. Corp NY Slip Op 30395(U) February 7, 2011 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number:

New York City Tr. Auth. v 4761 Broadway Assoc., LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 32718(U) December 21, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Ferguson v City of New York 2010 NY Slip Op 32321(U) August 25, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /06 Judge: Barbara Jaffe

McKee v Sciame Constr., LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33006(U) November 26, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Kathryn E.

Gardner v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc 2015 NY Slip Op 32272(U) November 23, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12

Patapova v Duncan Interiors, Inc NY Slip Op 33013(U) November 27, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Joan A.

Goncalves v New 56th and Park (NY) Owner, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33294(U) December 21, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015

Constantino v Glenmart LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32092(U) July 8, 2014 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Mark Friedlander Cases posted

Independent Temperature Control Servs., Inc. v Alps Mech. Inc NY Slip Op 31563(U) June 1, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1338/11

Engelbert v Flushing Commons Prop. Owner, LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30633(U) March 13, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015

Burgund v Verizon N.Y. Inc NY Slip Op 31944(U) August 10, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Kelly A.

Mack-Cali Realty Corp. v NGM Ins. Co NY Slip Op 33719(U) January 16, 2013 Sup Ct, Westchester County Docket Number: 50233/2012 Judge: Sam D.

Gonzalez v Schlau 2011 NY Slip Op 31048(U) April 12, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 8960/2009 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished

Patino v Drexler 2013 NY Slip Op 30693(U) April 9, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Republished from

Sengbusch v Les Bateaux De N.Y., Inc NY Slip Op 31983(U) July 11, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Nancy M.

Tesoro v Metropolitan Swimming, Inc NY Slip Op 32769(U) October 25, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge:

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig NY Slip Op 30524(U) March 4, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Manuel

Page-Smith v Goumas 2019 NY Slip Op 30165(U) January 17, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases

Rodriguez v Judge 2014 NY Slip Op 30546(U) January 27, 2014 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted with

Board of Mgrs. of the Baxter St. Condominium v Baxter St. Dev. Co. LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 30209(U) January 30, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket

Halsey v Isidore 46 Realty Corp NY Slip Op 32411(U) November 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Janice A.

Verizon N.Y., Inc. v National Grid USA Serv. Co NY Slip Op 30088(U) January 8, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014

Leary v Dallas BBQ 2011 NY Slip Op 30195(U) January 20, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2007 Judge: Lottie E.

McGovern & Co., LLC v Midtown Contr. Corp NY Slip Op 30154(U) January 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:

Mendoza v New York City Tr. Auth NY Slip Op 33200(U) December 13, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Adam

Spencer v Brooklyn Hosp NY Slip Op 31307(U) June 3, 2013 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Karen B. Rothenberg Republished

Mikell v New York City Tr. Auth NY Slip Op 31066(U) April 16, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 23370/2014 Judge: Mitchell J.

Sullivan v Warner Bros. Tel NY Slip Op 32620(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Paul Wooten

Smith v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc NY Slip Op 31280(U) May 12, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2006 Judge: Martin

Rubin v KDG Pound Ridge 2014 NY Slip Op 32872(U) May 5, 2014 Sup Ct, Westchester County Docket Number: 50957/2011 Judge: James W. Hubert Cases posted

Fayenson v Freidman 2010 NY Slip Op 30726(U) April 5, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2009 Judge: Paul Wooten Republished

Meyers v Amano 2017 NY Slip Op 30858(U) April 17, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Margaret A.

Curran v 201 West 87th St., L.P NY Slip Op 33145(U) September 26, 2014 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 20305/12 Judge: Howard G.

Colorado v YMCA of Greater N.Y NY Slip Op 30987(U) May 10, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Erika M.

Saavedra v 64 Annfield Court Corp NY Slip Op 30068(U) January 13, 2014 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Joseph J.

Park v Flynn 2019 NY Slip Op 30619(U) March 13, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with

Briare Tile, Inc. v Town & Country Flooring, Inc NY Slip Op 31520(U) May 24, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010

Frydman v Francese 2017 NY Slip Op 31069(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Cynthia S.

Love-Evans v Goodman Mgt. Co., Inc NY Slip Op 31085(U) April 14, 2014 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Jr., Kenneth L.

Buchelli v City of New York 2010 NY Slip Op 31857(U) July 12, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /04 Judge: Cynthia S.

Nunez v Kmart Corp NY Slip Op 30978(U) March 25, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Nancy M.

LG Funding, LLC v City N. Grill Corp NY Slip Op 33290(U) December 14, 2018 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /2017 Judge:

Navarro v Harco Consultants Corp NY Slip Op 30880(U) March 12, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Carol R.

Rodriguez v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 33650(U) October 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Kathryn E.

Ram v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30798(U) April 8, 2015 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Wilma Guzman Cases posted with a

Diaz v 142 Broadway Assoc. LLC NY Slip Op 33111(U) December 6, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: William

Fruchtman v Tishman Speyer Props NY Slip Op 30468(U) February 28, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Joan M.

VanHanehan v St. Thomas 2018 NY Slip Op 32971(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: Judge: John B.

Padron v Granite Broadway Dev. LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33279(U) December 13, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Lucy

Michael Alan Group, Inc. v Rawspace Group, Inc NY Slip Op 30055(U) January 3, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017

Eldin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 32584(U) October 12, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Debra Silber

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Office of Admin. Trial and Hearings 2018 NY Slip Op 32827(U) November 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York

Scharf v Grange Assoc., LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30025(U) January 3, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: Kathryn E.

Barrett v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J NY Slip Op 33374(U) December 3, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Carl J.

Saldana v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32973(U) October 1, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 21703/2015 Judge: Llinet M.

Graciano Corp. v Lanmark Group, Inc NY Slip Op 33388(U) December 28, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Eileen

Empire, LLC v Armin A. Meizlik Co., Inc NY Slip Op 30012(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge:

Stevenson v City of New York 2016 NY Slip Op 30674(U) March 8, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Mary Ann Brigantti

Private Capital Funding Co., LLC v 513 Cent. Park LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32004(U) July 29, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Anil

Soto v J.C. Penney Corp., Inc NY Slip Op 32147(U) October 30, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Alison Y.

Pokuaa v Wellington Leasing Ltd. Partnership 2011 NY Slip Op 31580(U) June 2, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 9725/09 Judge: Howard

Garcia v Pepsico, Inc NY Slip Op 30051(U) September 13, 2002 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Judge: Paula J. Omansky Republished

Waterfalls Italian Cuisine, Inc. v Tamarin 2013 NY Slip Op 33299(U) March 22, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Philip

Wachter v Thomas Jefferson Owners Corp NY Slip Op 30405(U) February 7, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 17149/08 Judge: Orin R.

Spektor v Caiati 2017 NY Slip Op 31076(U) May 16, 2017 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Debra Silber Cases posted with a

Transcription:

Walsh v New York Univ. 2019 NY Slip Op 30982(U) April 5, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116134/09 Judge: Carol R. Edmead Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's ecourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 35 -----------------------------------------------------------------)( THOMAS WALSH, --against-- Plaintiff, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY and TURNER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Index No. 116134/09 Motion Seq. Nos. 006 and 007 DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. ---------------------------------.--------------------------------)( NEW YORK UNIVERSITY and TURNER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Third-party Plaintiffs, Third-party index No. 590733/10 --against-- BURGESSSTEEL,LLC,BURGESSSTEEL ERECTORS OF NEW YORK, LLC, and BURGESS STEEL PRODUCTS CORP., Third-party Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------)( BURGESSSTEEL,LLC,BURGESSSTEEL ERECTORS OF NEW YORK, LLC, and BURGESS STEEL PRODUCTS CORP., Second Third-party Plaintiffs, Third-party index No. 590521/13 --against-- TRI STATE DISMANTLING CORP., NATIONAL ACCOUSTICS, INC., and D.P. CONSULTING CORP., Second Third-party Defendants. --------------------------------------------------- --------------)( CAROL R. EDMEAD, J.S.C.: In this Labor Law action, second third-party defendant National Acoustics, Inc. (National Acoustics) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary jugdgment dismissing the second third- 1 2 of 11

[* FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 party complaint and any cross claims as against it (motion seq. No. 008). While National Acoustics moves, nominally, for summary judgment on its cross claims and counterclaims, it does not address these claims in its moving papers. Second third-party defednat Tri State Dismantling Corp. (Tri State) moves for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims as against it (motion seq. No. 009). Third-party defendants/second third-party plaintiffs Burgess Steel, LLC, Burgess Steel Erectors of New York, LLC, and Burgess Steel Products Corp. (collectively, Burgess) cross-move against Tri-State for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3124, striking Tri State's answer to the second third-party complaint, o!, in the alternative, issuing an order of preclusion, or compelling Tri State to appear for a deposition. The motions are consolidated for disposition. BACKGROUND This case arises out of renovation of defendant/new York Univesity' s (NYU) Silver Hall, located at 100 Washington Square Park in Manhattan. NYU owns the property and defendant/third-party plaintiff Turner Construction Corporation (Turner) served as the construction manager on the project, which encompassed demolition and renovation work on four floors, including the roof. Turner's project superintendant, Devanand Deonarine (Deonarine) testified that the work on the roof involved "building a steel platform, so that NYU could install future mechanical equipment on that platform" (Deonarine tr at 27). This is the portion of the work with which plaintiff Thomas Walsh, an ironworker, and Burgess, his employer, were involved. Prior to reaching the stage where the steel platform could be erected, some demolition work on the roof was required. Specifically, exhaust ducts and fans were removed (id. at 29). Turner hired second thifd-party plaintiff, Tri State, to do the demolition work on the roof. Prior 2 3 of 11

[* FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 to the project, the exhaust fans on the roof sat on iron angles that were raised two or three feet off of the roof (id. at 30-31 ). When Tri State removed the exhaust fans, they left a portion of the iron angles, which.had supported them, protruding fro~ the roof (id. at 32~35). As to why the angles were not fully re~oved, Deonarine tesitified that "[y]ou don't want to cut [them] d?wn low because then you would have water getting into the roof' (id.). Prior to Burgess's erection of a metal platform, National Acoustics, the carpentry subcontractor, built a temporary plywood platform, referred to colloquially as a "dance floor," so that the work would not damage the roof (id. at 87). The remnants of the iron angles that had supported the exhaust fans protruded up from between the pieces of plywood of the "dance floor" (id. at 112-113). Deorarine testified that the project could have been scheduled differently, so that the protrusions were removed prior to Burgess's work, but doing so would have been more expensive: (id. at 117). Q: Who decided, ifyou know, who decided that that would be the process? A: Basically the - whoever created the project schedule. Q: And who creates a project schedule? A: I did. Q: Okay. Is there any reason why you decided, and I'm not sure whether you decided or whether it ended up that leaving the protrusions in the condition they were in was the preferred way of doing it? A: It is the preferred way to do it because you end - you want to save your client, you know, money from basically having to rip that plywood out doing the protection, repairing the roof and putting the plywood [in] again. Q: Could it have been done differently? A: Yes~ You could have actually - NYU could have actually removed all the plywood protection, repaired it, then put new protection down. That's what we could have done. On October 14, 2009, plaintiff was working as a foreman for Burgess on the roof of Silver Hall. Immediately before his accident, in which he tripped over one of the protruding angles, plaintiff gave instructions to his crew 4 of about 11 the integration of beams, stored on the roof,

[* FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 to the metal platform Burgess was constructing. "I was telling them to take a couple of beams over to a certain area," plaintiff testified. "When I turned around, my pants, the lower part of the pants hooked the angle and flipped me to the ground" (plaintiff's September 3, 2014 tr at 59). Plaintiff alleges that the fall caused injuries, including a tear of the meniscus in his left knee, which required surgery. Plaintiff also testified that the angles protruded six to eight inches from the plywood "dance floor" and that he had complained to the super from Turner about the safety risk they presented and the Turner super "said he was going to be taking care of them" (plaintiff's July 10, 2012 tr at 33-34, 37). While no one from Turner acknowledged such a conversatin, Deonarine, Turner's project superintendent, testified that he saw the protruding angle remnants. Deonarine, who did walkthroughs of the jobsite "[a]t least three times a day," testified that the angles protruded approximately "six to eight inches" from the plywood "dance floor" (Deonarine tr at 53, 88). Deonarine testified that he did not receive any complaints about the angles and, when asked why he did not have them removed, he responded: "Because in my mind they were close - they were away from the work area, and they were not a safety -- there were no major safety issues with it or safety concerns" (id. at 90). Plaintiff commenced the action by serving his summons and compl'1;int dated November 12, 2009. The complaint alleges that NYU and Turner are liable under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence, as well as Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). Subsequently, NYU brought a third-party complaint dated August 10, 2010 against Burgess, alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance and seeking indemnification. Finally, Burgess brought a second third-party action against Tri State, National Accoustics, the carpentry subcontractor, and D.P. Consulting Corp. (DP Consulting) alleging failure to procure insurance, and seeking 5 of 11

[* FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 indemnification and contribution. While Tri State and National Accoustics joined the action, DP Consulting has never answered the second third-party complaint and is in default. Turner and NYU argue, among other things, that the complaint should be dismissed, as the protruding angle involved in plaintiffs accident was not a dangerous condition on the jobsite. Burgess, on the other hand, argues that the Turner and NYU's claim for breach of contract should be dismissec;l because Burgess procured the insurance required by its contract with Turner. Additionally, Burgess argues that Turner and NYU's contractual indemnification claim is barred, or at least restricted, by the anitisubrogation doctrine. Turner and NYU previously moved for summary judgment and the court, by a memorandum decision dated March 2, 2018 (the March 2018 decision), granted in part, and denied in part. The March 2018 decision, among other things, dismissed all of plaintiffs claims except for his Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims, as well as his Labor Law 241 (6) claim, as premised on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2). DISCUSSION "Summary judgment must be granted ifthe proponent makes 'a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact,' and the opponent fails to rebut that showing" (Brandy B. v Eden Cent. School Dist., 15 NY3d 297, 302 [2010], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). However, if the moving party fails to make a prima facie showing, the court must deny the motion, '"regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers"' (Smalls v AJI Indus., Inc., 10 NY3d 733, 735 [2008], quoting Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324). 5 6 of 11

[* FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 I t. I. National Acoustics' Motion Here, National Acoustics installed temporary "dance floor." In its moving papers, National Acoustics argues that, as it was not responsible for the removal of the iron angle that caused plaintiffs accident, or for the scheduling of work, or safety on the jobsite, it cannot be found negligent Accordingly, National Acoustics argues that it cannot be ~esponsible be liable under theories of common-law negligence and contribution. In opposition, Burgess argues that its claims for common-law negligence and contribution against National Acoustics are viable, as there is a question of fact as to whether the plans which National Acoustics followed were so defective as to subject it to liability. Burgess relies on a longstanding principle articulated by the Court of Appeals in Ryan v Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co. (219 NY 43 [1924]): "A builder or contractor is justified in relying upon the plans and specifications which he has contracted to follow unless they are so apparently defective that an ordinary builder of ordinary prudence would be put upon notice that the work was dangerous and 'likely to cause injury" (id. at 46). In Ryan, the Court of Appeals found that the general rule, rather than its exception was applicable (id. at 47). Iri the almost 100 years since Ryan was decided, New York courts have followed its lead iffapplying this standard as a steep threshold (see e.g. Nichols-Sisson v Windstar Airport Serv., Inc., 99 AD3d 770 [2d Dept 2012] and Hartofil v McCourt & Trudden Funeral Home, Inc., 57 AD3d 943 [2d Dept 2008]). In Nichols-Sisson, the Appellate Division held that the contractor had no liability where "the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the contract plans were so clearly defective that a contractor of ordinary prudence would not have performed the work" (99 AD3d at 772). The Court also noted that liability for the contractor was inappropriate as "there is no 6 7 of 11

[* FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 evidence that it assumed or undertook a continuing duty" as to safety on the jobsite (id.). In Hartofil, the Appellate Division overturned the trial court's denial of a contractor's application for summary judgment, holding thav'the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the contract plans were so clearly defective that a contractor of ordinary prudence would have not performed the work" (57 AD3d at 945-946). The Court reasoned that "[c]ontrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the affidavit of the plaintiffs masonry expert was insufficient to raise an issue of fact because his conclusions were not supported by citation to empirical data or any relevant construction practices or industry standards" (id. at 946). Here, National Acoustics has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. It is uncontested that National Acoustics did not install, remove, or repair the angle irons on the subject project. The court has determined that a question of fact exists as to Turner's negligence based on its scheduling of the work- specifically, its decision to partially, instead of fully, removing the angle irons and allowing work to proceed among the remnants. National Acoustic clearly had no role in these decisions. Burgess failed to raise a question of fact in opposition. It provided no expert testimony that the plans National Acoustics carried out were clearly defective. Instead, the record reflects that the work National Acoustics performed was customary. In these circumstances, the general rule that a contractor may not be liable for relying on the plans provided to it controls. As such, Burgess fails to raise an issue of fact as to whether National Acoustics was negligent. Accordingly, Burgess's claims against National Acoustics - for indemnification and contribution - must be dismissed. As Tri State, does not oppose National Acoustics' motion, National Acoustics is not only entitled to dismissal of the second third-party complaint but also all cross claims as against it. 8 of 11 7

[* FILED: 8] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 Burgess's argument that the motion is premature is unpersuasive. In its moving papers, Burgess argues that it has not been provided with the plans and specifications on which National Acoustics relied. In reply, National Acoustics provides a response to Burgess's demand for discovery and inspection, which, in essence, states that it is not in possession of the documents that Burgess seeks. Here, where nothing in the record suggests that National Acoustics might be negligent, any further discovery would represent a fishing expedition. Accordingly, Natioanal Acoustics application is not premature. Despite not having standing to do so, NYU and Turner oppose National Acoustics motion. National Acoustics is not a defendant, so NYU and Turner cannot cross claim against it (see BAS Communications, Inc. v YTK Corp., 15 Misc3d 1104 [Sup Ct, Nassau. Cty 2007]). Nor have NYU and Turner brought third-party claims against National Acoustics. As Turner and NYU do not have standing to oppose National Acoustics motion~ the court declines to read their opposition. However, National Acoustics fails to make aprimafacie showing; or even argue, that it is entitled to summary judgment on any of its cross claims. Accordingly, its application for such relief is denied. II. Tri State's Motion and Burgess's Cross Motion Initially, the court must address Burgess's contention that the motion is premature and that Tri State must be sanctioned for failing to appear for a deposition. Burgess submits six court orders directing Tri State to appear for a deposition (NYSCEF doc No. 229). The discovery orders embodying those directives are dated July 12, 2016, November 15, 2016, September 5, 2017, November 21, 2017, February 27, 2018, and July 31, 2018. 8 9 of 11

[* FILED: 9] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 At first glance, this would appear to represent an egregious disregard of court orders. However, a review of the orders and the discovery history of this case does not reveal any special wantonness on Tri State's part. That is, all six orders also contain the scheduling of other parties, including Burgess, who preceded Tri State in priority. The history, then, does not show that the delay in the taking of depositions was Tri State's fault. Moroever, none of the orders contained "conditional language" setting out penalties against Tri State in the event that it failed to comply. However, this order will. Tri State has 21 days from the date of this order to appear for a deposition. If it fails to do so, its answer to the second third-party complaint will be stricken. In the meantime, its motion for summary judgment will be denied without prejudice. 9 10 of 11

[* FILED: 10] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 04:14 PM INDEX NO. 116134/2009 Accordingly, it is CONCLUSION ORDERED that second third-party defendant National Acoustics, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (motion seq. No. 008) is granted to the extent that the second third-party complaint, as against it, as well as all cross claims as against it, are dismissed; and it is further \ ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and the case is severed and continues against remaining defendants, third-party defendants and second third-party defendant; and it is further ORDERED that s"econd third-party defendant Tri State Dismantling Corp.'s (Tri State) motion for summary judgment (motion seq. No. 009) is denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that third party defendands/second third-party plaintiffs Burgess Steel, LLC, Burgess Steel Erectors ofnew York, LLC, and Burgess Steel Products Corp.'s (together, Burgess) cross motion for discovery or discovery sanctions is granted only to the extent that Tri State is directed to appear for a deposition within 21 days of this order; and it is further ORDERED that Tri State's failure to appear for a deposition within 21 days will result in striking of its answer to the second third-party complaint; and it is further ODERED that counsel for Burgess is to serve a copy of this order, along with notice of entry on all parties, within 5 days of entry. Dated: April 5, 2019 ' ENTER: 10 ~1 EdgJSC HON. CAROL R. EDMEAD J.S.C. 11 of 11